Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[dianaiad]

Jesus The Christ ANSWERED ALL questions in The New Testament, even when He answered a question with a question of His own, his adversaries could INFER the ANSWER by the question Jesus The Christ asked.

If you have no fear of questions then you are one of the better mormon leaders,
let the debate continue.

So a questioning tone of voice is unacceptable.

Your ‘tone of voice’ is ‘questioning’ the way a guard dog is curious. Your ‘tone’ is belligerent, accusative, sarcastic and belittling.

You do not ask questions, you set traps. Your purpose is not to learn what our beliefs are, or to gain understanding of a belief not your own, it is to destroy, cut down, and defeat.

There are mormons here who try to press their point in the strongest way possible.

But when a Christian tries to press a point that is difficult for a mormon to deal with,
then the Christian’s tone is unacceptable.

How convenient.

So you justify your attack style because there are some Mormons who defend strongly?

“This animal is dangerous; when you attack it, it defends itself.”

 

[sweetnay]

Answers,
Luke 23:9 tells about Herod asking Christ questions.

“Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”

“And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.”

In your particular case here, I am going to follow Christ’s example in that particular instance. There are people who have their own agenda and seek wherewith to accuse, for whom the best answer is to “write on the ground” (John 8:6) or to “answer him nothing.”

Nice cop out. Extra pts comparing yourself to Christ, you really are a god in embryo form. Diana and yourself both get 10’s for your mental gymnastics to excuse your Doctrine, Prophets and BOM for–well just about everything…le sigh

 

[ParkerD]

Nice cop out. Extra pts comparing yourself to Christ, you really are a god in embryo form. Diana and yourself both get 10’s for your mental gymnastics to excuse your Doctrine, Prophets and BOM for–well just about everything…le sigh

Sweetnay,
So are you saying that when Christ said “Come, follow me” He didn’t really mean it?

Should I follow you instead? No, thank you.

One of the major points of Christ’s gospel and the teachings of the apostles is that when people have their own agendas, including hidden agendas, then it is of no use to argue with them. Let them think they have “won”. The gospel is not a tug of war, though some make it seem so. Have as good a day as you want to have and the peace in your heart that you want to have. Call me what you want to call me, and accuse me however you like. It makes no difference to me.

 

[NewSeeker]

I see. I love a good sense of humor…

Yes, I find it quite amusing that you choose to ignore the history of science due to religious bias.

NS

 

[sweetnay]

Sweetnay,
So are you saying that when Christ said “Come, follow me” He didn’t really mean it?

Should I follow you instead? No, thank you.

One of the major points of Christ’s gospel and the teachings of the apostles is that when people have their own agendas, including hidden agendas, then it is of no use to argue with them. Let them think they have “won”. The gospel is not a tug of war, though some make it seem so. Have as good a day as you want to have and the peace in your heart that you want to have. Call me what you want to call me, and accuse me however you like. It makes no difference to me.

I don’t expect it to make a difference, I’m merely pointing out how your responses are steeped in hubris derived from your deeply held but false belief of progression god hood. Believe it or not, if you truly believe you will become a god of your own world, your mind and heart marinate in this lie and your speech is indicative of such. Your “kind” words are rooted in blasphemy and dripping with misplaced compassion-you are a wolf in sheeps clothing, continuing to troll this forum advocating your “twistianity”.
No amount of “have a nice day” or quotes from Sacred Scripture will change that.

Joseph lied and you bought it and taught it to your children. We won’t buy it here and will defend true Christianity no matter how uncomfortable it gets.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, I find it quite amusing that you choose to ignore the history of science due to religious bias.

NS

This was my original point. People who still use the phrase ‘dark ages’ in a historical context are generally anti-catholic and/or have a very simpleton understanding of the Middle Ages.

She then proceeded to prove my point in two ways: 1) showing a simple anti-catholic bias to the history of the Middle Ages and 2) adamantly defending the use of the term in a historical context.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I find it quite amusing that you choose to ignore the history of science due to religious bias.

NS

Oh, darn…here I thought that last comment was ironic.

I’m sad to discover I was incorrect.

Your comment about 'standing on the shoulders of priests…" reminded me of the old Soviet claim that every single invention that ever came out of the USA was first invented by the Russians…

Or better still—

Bacon was neither priest NOR Catholic. Descartes was not a priest. If all their thoughts and discoveries were the direct result of those priestly shoulders they stood upon, then why didn’t those priests come up with all this, put their names on it, and do it a whole bunch sooner?

 

[dianaiad]

This was my original point. People who still use the phrase ‘dark ages’ in a historical context are generally anti-catholic and/or have a very simpleton understanding of the Middle Ages.

She then proceeded to prove my point in two ways: 1) showing a simple anti-catholic bias to the history of the Middle Ages and 2) adamantly defending the use of the term in a historical context.

(shaking head)

As you are showing your Catholic bias. How am I showing an anti-Catholic bias when I say that it was due to the Catholics that we were able to keep so many of the writings of the ancients?

How is it an ‘anti-Catholic’ bias to state simple facts…for instance, that the Catholics COULD have had schools to educate the serfs, since they DID have schools to educate their clergy (which came from the upper classes), but simply did not?

It wasn’t until the rise of a middle class–which came about at about the same time as the Reformation–that it was considered even possible to educate people who were not ‘noble’ (i.e., rich.)

…and I don’t think we need to go into the way the Jews were treated all during that time, do we?

C’mon, sir. We have a great deal to thank the Catholics for during that time, this is true.

One of those things is the extension of that time.

As well, my own reference to the ‘dark ages’ isn’t so much political as it is literary. I mark it according to what was written and shared; what works were produced, what were not…what happened to those who tried, and who could actually read and write. Who was allowed to read and write?

What literature was produced between the Fall of Rome (400 AD or so) and the first crusades? (1025…) What scientific progress was made? What was LOST???

If you want to be politically correct and call that time ‘early middle ages’ you can, but don’t get huffy about it; plenty of well respected historians still refer to that era as the 'Dark Ages."

 

[Stephen168]

She then proceeded to prove my point in two ways: 1) showing a simple anti-catholic bias

to the history of the Middle Ages
dianaiad;5489580:

How is it an ‘anti-Catholic’ bias to state simple

facts…for instance, that the Catholics COULD have had schools to educate the serfs, since they DID have schools to educate their clergy (which came from the upper classes), but simply did not?

And thanks again

 

[Stephen168]

Bacon was neither priest NOR Catholic. Descartes was not a priest. If all their thoughts and discoveries were the direct result of those priestly shoulders they stood upon, then why didn’t those priests come up with all this, put their names on it, and do it a whole bunch sooner?

Maybe if you could answer posts 367 & 368, I could help you with your question

 

[NewSeeker]

Oh, darn…here I thought that last comment was ironic.

I’m sad to discover I was incorrect.

Your comment about 'standing on the shoulders of priests…" reminded me of the old Soviet claim that every single invention that ever came out of the USA was first invented by the Russians…

Or better still—

Bacon was neither priest NOR Catholic. Descartes was not a priest. If all their thoughts and discoveries were the direct result of those priestly shoulders they stood upon, then why didn’t those priests come up with all this, put their names on it, and do it a whole bunch sooner?

So, clearly you believe Descartes and F. Bacon operated in a vacuum and completed their work from a blank slate. Thanks for clarifying your position.

NS

 

[dianaiad]

And thanks again

You are quite welcome, Stephen…

Question: Is it anti-American to point out that before the civil war, Americans could own slaves?

Is it anti-Mormon to say that before 1978, blacks of AFrican descent could not hold the priesthood?

Is it anti-Protestant to point out that the bible the Protestants use has fewer books in it than the one the Catholics use?

Is it anti-Mormon to say that the Fancher train was attacked and everybody in it over the age of 8 was murdered?

Is it anti-Catholic to mention what was done to the Albegensians on the order of Pope Innocent III?

Is it anti-American to list the number of times that a man’s religion (Catholic and Mormon both) was used against him in politics?

Is it really anti-Catholic to point out that the very thing that allowed the Catholics to preserve the writings and learning of the ancients–its system of monasteries and abbeys–is the thing that also cemented the problems of the dar—er, ‘early medieval period’–longer than was perhaps necessary?

Stephen, you tend to get very bitter about Mormons and who they term 'anti-Mormon," claiming that we call anybody who disagrees with us an 'anti-Mormon." Yet here you are, being far more prone to that in terms of Catholicism than I ever am about Mormonism.

I’m an 'anti-Catholic" because I acknowledge ‘dark ages’ as a term for a specific period of history? Because I understand that period of history better than you like?

Great googly moogly, man. .

 

[dianaiad]

So, clearly you believe Descartes and F. Bacon operated in a vacuum and completed their work from a blank slate. Thanks for clarifying your position.

NS

Not quite…but it’s obvious that nobody else did it, and nobody else did it sooner…that is, no priest or monk or pope actually wrote down those ideas. Bacon and Descartes, however, DID.

So clearly you believe that Descartes and F.Bacon deserve no credit for anything they did or wrote, but all credit for their work should go backward until it actually reaches a priest somewhere?

I’ll bet next you are going to claim that Catholic priests invented television?

 

[mjf001]

Not quite…but it’s obvious that nobody else did it, and nobody else did it sooner…that is, no priest or monk or pope actually wrote down those ideas. Bacon and Descartes, however, DID.

So clearly you believe that Descartes and F.Bacon deserve no credit for anything they did or wrote, but all credit for their work should go backward until it actually reaches a priest somewhere?

I’ll bet next you are going to claim that Catholic priests invented television?

I think if you look at the history of the development of the sciences, new discoveries are built off of the discoveries of others. By preserving the ancient learning, the Catholic monks who labored to preserve the knowledge, had a hand in facilitating new discoveries when when the western world was ready to move forward again.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[NewSeeker]

I think if you look at the history of the development of the sciences, new discoveries are built off of the discoveries of others. By preserving the ancient learning, the Catholic monks who labored to preserve the knowledge, had a hand in facilitating new discoveries when when the western world was ready to move forward again.

In Christ,
Michael

Yes, well said, and better than I could say it. That’s the whole point, Diana. Giving Catholic priests the credit they’re due for their contributions to science does not take away from the achievements of Descartes and F. Bacon. But the reverse is also true, a fact you so clearly don’t want to accept.

NS

 

[mjf001]

Yes, well said, and better than I could say it. That’s the whole point, Diana. Giving Catholic priests the credit they’re due for their contributions to science does not take away from the achievements of Descartes and F. Bacon. But the reverse is also true, a fact you so clearly don’t want to accept.

NS

 

[dianaiad]

I think if you look at the history of the development of the sciences, new discoveries are built off of the discoveries of others. By preserving the ancient learning, the Catholic monks who labored to preserve the knowledge, had a hand in facilitating new discoveries when when the western world was ready to move forward again.

In Christ,
Michael

THAT I will give you, at least to a point…and it is a point that I have mentioned myself several times.

I guess the problem for me is this–understandable, I suppose–idea that the Catholic priests and monks had all control of all learning, and that they generously did everything in their power to see to it that science and scientific thought was put into place in society as soon as they possibly could, and that it was all Catholic, all the time. This idea that Bacon, who was a protestant and the son of a protestant, deserved no credit for his work, but has to hand it all over to a Catholic priest…sorry. That bugs me.

It wouldn’t have, so much, if it were not true that for close to a thousand years the Catholics DID have a monopoly on knowledge, and preserved and kept it–and didn’t start to disseminate it until they were forced to.

Knowledge isn’t like wine or cheese: knowledge grows best when it’s out in the light and everybody has a crack at it, not when it is being carefully tended in dark places. That the church preserved the knowledge of the ancients is wonderful, and it deserves great praise and gratitude for that.

But the fact remains that if it were not for outside forces, and men like Descartes and Bacon–and Galileo and others–that the church would never have let any of that precious knowledge loose.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, well said, and better than I could say it. That’s the whole point, Diana. Giving Catholic priests the credit they’re due for their contributions to science does not take away from the achievements of Descartes and F. Bacon. But the reverse is also true, a fact you so clearly don’t want to accept.

NS

I don’t mind a bit when someone says that men like Descartes and Bacon owed their education to Catholic priests…they did. Well, Descartes did, anyway. They did indeed build upon their education.

However, I was reacting to the claim that R.Descartes and F.Bacon did not deserve the credit for what they did at all; they were completely dismissed with 'Descartes was a Catholic." and “Bacon was taught by Catholics” as if that’s all that counted.

Well, many Catholics were taught by Catholics, but only Descartes and Bacon came up with the ideas.

 

[NewSeeker]

I don’t mind a bit when someone says that men like Descartes and Bacon owed their education to Catholic priests…they did. Well, Descartes did, anyway. They did indeed build upon their education.

However, I was reacting to the claim that R.Descartes and F.Bacon did not deserve the credit for what they did at all; they were completely dismissed with 'Descartes was a Catholic." and “Bacon was taught by Catholics” as if that’s all that counted.

Well, many Catholics were taught by Catholics, but only Descartes and Bacon came up with the ideas.

No one claimed that Descartes and Bacon deserved no credit for their work. I think you read far too much into those statements you quote above than is warranted.

NS

 

[mjf001]

THAT I will give you, at least to a point…and it is a point that I have mentioned myself several times.

I guess the problem for me is this–understandable, I suppose–idea that the Catholic priests and monks had all control of all learning, and that they generously did everything in their power to see to it that science and scientific thought was put into place in society as soon as they possibly could, and that it was all Catholic, all the time. This idea that Bacon, who was a protestant and the son of a protestant, deserved no credit for his work, but has to hand it all over to a Catholic priest…sorry. That bugs me.

It wouldn’t have, so much, if it were not true that for close to a thousand years the Catholics DID have a monopoly on knowledge, and preserved and kept it–and didn’t start to disseminate it until they were forced to.

Knowledge isn’t like wine or cheese: knowledge grows best when it’s out in the light and everybody has a crack at it, not when it is being carefully tended in dark places. That the church preserved the knowledge of the ancients is wonderful, and it deserves great praise and gratitude for that.

But the fact remains that if it were not for outside forces, and men like Descartes and Bacon–and Galileo and others–that the church would never have let any of that precious knowledge loose.

Before the printing press, knowledge was not as easy to disseminate. In the days we’re talking about, knowledge was passed through academia. It was a time consuming, painstaking process. It could take months or years to produce one manuscript. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think paper the way we know of it and think of it today was readily available. The writing utensils were more expensive, the parchments harder to come by than today’s standards, and producing them was much more difficult. Yet you seem to want to judge them by today’s standards. Even 50 or a hundred years ago, information was harder to disseminate. I’m sorry, I can hardly agree with your conclusions.

The death of an empire, any empire, creates chaos for the civilization(s) which have grown to rely on them. I would think that was more of a problem at the time of the fall of the Roman empire. A lack of modern technology, would have played a large role in the way things progressed in Europe.

And I would take issue with your assertion that the Church controlled everything. I would say secular governments always had more power. The Church may have had influence, but I think history shows that where there was a conflict between the secular interests and the interests of the Church, the Secular interests usually won out. See the story of Joan of Arc, for example. The history I was taught blamed the church, but the real history is a combination of one bad bishop and the secular interests of the state.

Take into account the rise of power among the Turks at the same time (back to the dark ages), and you have a recipe for disaster in Europe.

I don’t think there was some great thought or conspiracy among the clergy to keep the serfs and peasants ignorant or to horde knowledge to themselves. I think this is an unjust claim on the part of people who continue to make it.

I don’t think anyone would assert that the people who make the discoveries are the people who deserve credit for their discoveries. However, without the preservation of the knowledge they used to help make the leap of inspiration, those discoveries might not have been made.

In Christ,
Michael